Dick Cheney, a heartthrob?

Dick Cheney, by all accounts, is a genuinely miserable human being. His taciturn, sullen, completely monotonous and bleak personality is only exacerbated by his arrogant, dismissive, uncompromising worldview. The photo at right is probably the closest resemblance to a smile that has ever appeared on his face (though really it's more of a smirk). He'd do far better as a curmudgeonly old man drinking Bud Light in a LazyBoy chair than he does as vice president of the United States.

The day after last week's State of the Union address, he was interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who asked him some tough but reasonable questions -- why he has made so many deceptive and inaccurate statements over the years, for instance, and how this has perhaps wrecked his credibility with Congress and the American people. Or how he feels about his lesbian daughter being pregnant out of wedlock. Or whether he thinks Hillary Clinton would make a good president. To this particular question, Cheney replied in the negative, of course, saying it was simply "because she's a Democrat."

What a smarmy ass. This confrontational exchange, played repeatedly on CNN as well as The Daily Show, got me thinking about how someone as vile as Cheney ever manages in this world. How, for example, did he ever get married? Was Lynne Cheney really that desperate? It's not as though his dour persona is compensated for by boyish good looks. Is it possible to imagine Dick Cheney as a romantic young man? How did he propose to her? Did he actually have to crack a smile when he took her on the first date? Was Lynne attracted to him because she thought he was a gentleman? What exactly was she thinking? Even pondering such questions makes me cringe.

I often doubt whether there's such a person in this world who can truly be characterized as my "soulmate." Perhaps Cheney is the answer to this question. After all, he lends strong credence to the notion that there is, indeed, someone out there for everyone.

...and the opposite

At the conclusion of my last post, I mentioned two potential 2008 presidential candidates -- John Edwards and Barack Obama -- whose campaigns I would watch and consider closely over the next several months. Listed below is precisely the opposite: people from either major political party whose candidacies, in my opinion, shouldn't even be given a second thought.

• Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY: She would be a terrible choice for the Democrats next year, but unfortunately, it appears she's got the best shot so far. Too many people loathe her. She's too divisive, and she carries too much baggage simply because she's married to a former president who, on his own, has more than enough baggage to bear. She'll run a campaign about as effective as that of John Kerry in 2004 (see below). To my knowledge, she has yet to admit any responsibility or fault in voting for the Iraq disaster, which will absolutely remain an issue next year. The Democrats simply can't afford another candidate who, although she voted to authorize Bush's war of choice (and evidently is too prideful to regret it), can't seem to stop talking about what a catastrophe it has become. The last thing America needs is another polarizing president who achieved her position largely through name recognition. Do I want a female commander-in-chief? Absolutely. Should it be Hillary Clinton? No way.
• Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.: Brownback (pictured above) is just bad. He's already made the centerpiece of his campaign those emotionally-charged issues used to judge and ostracize people rather than help them; issues that create anger and hostility rather than unity. Brownback knows this, of course. I respect the right of candidates to publicize their views on controversial social issues, but it's sad when gay bashing is evidently the best chance a candidate has distinguish himself from others. To be fair, he has called needed attention to the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region. Unfortunately, this honorable cause has been overshadowed by his insistence on feigning moral superiority and a closeness to God that the ACLU and "activist" judges apparently lack. Brownback would alienate a large segment of Americans who are taken aback by his rigid, narrow, seemingly judgmental, and definitely one-sided representation of the Christian faith.
• Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: Kerry apparently isn't running for president again. Good. Like Clinton (and unlike his former running mate, John Edwards), he has yet to develop any coherent or sensible policy on Iraq, and he refuses to retract his 2002 vote to authorize it. Plus, he's a terrible campaigner who can be counted on to give his opponent plenty of ammunition, and his positions often seem built on politics rather than principle. Too many voters see straight through this. The people of Massachusetts will always be gracious enough to grant John Kerry a seat in the Senate, and that's precisely where he should stay. Thanks in advance for sparing us in 2008, John.

Honesty and humanity in politics

Perhaps intensifying speculation over the upcoming 2008 presidential election was George W. Bush's recent announcement that he plans to send 20,000 more troops into Iraq within the next month. For the record, I was not surprised but also not any less repulsed by this proposal. There are already about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now who can't control the disaster that Bush has created. How will a mere 20,000 more accomplish that feat? Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the idea and want change, but in his typically cavalier fashion, he dismissed that poll and said in an interview that he sometimes also needs to be the "educator-in-chief."

In this spirit of longing for change, I went with some friends today to listen to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, just one of many Democrats and Republicans who have announced their intent to seek or at least consider a presidential run next year. I'm the last person who would advertise almost any politician, but I was extremely impressed with Edwards' performance. Even though I disagree with him on a number of issues, he has always struck me as a very decent, honest person. Today was a confirmation of that. The entirety of his speech -- only about 30 minutes long -- focused on Bush's troop surge proposal and what a dire mistake it will be. The remainder of the time was devoted to audience questions.

Edwards up front accepted responsibility for voting in 2002 to authorize the Iraq disaster and said he was wrong to do so. This alone is an honorable act. I can forgive and forget the mistakes of our leaders, provided they admit their errors and offer options for correcting them. Far too few have done this. He then made a compelling case for why Congress must not oppose Bush's folly in symbol alone; it must cut funding for added troops, because this is the only way to impose a meaningful check on the president's bad choices. Most importantly, he explained his perspective on why the situation in Iraq has deteriorated so rapidly and what alternatives exist for addressing it. He rightly argued that military escalation is not one of them.

Several audience members posed questions to Edwards for which a specific answer was clearly expected. One asked his position on the death penalty; another, gay rights. To such questions, Edwards offered neither a sales pitch nor a self-righteous response. He said he was for capital punishment and for civil unions, but against gay marriage. He also conceded that it probably wasn't the answer they were looking for, but that they deserved to know the truth, and that his positions were no more correct than their own. When someone asked how Edwards planned to reduce the national deficit, he bluntly replied that this was a low priority for him compared to establishing universal health care -- again, perhaps not the expected answer, but honest nonetheless. Unlike many political candidates, his answers offered substance and specifics, and he acknowledged his own shortcomings: egotism, internal conflict over his own positions, and, of course, his vote for the Iraq war. He portrayed himself as human.

I'm nowhere near ready to endorse any candidate for the 2008 race. Having seen John Edwards in person, however, I recognize him as a person of integrity, honesty, and humanity. Along with Barack Obama, I'll be watching his campaign very closely over the next several months.

Our ailing planet

Last week, an Associated Press article reported that 2006 was the warmest year for the United States since records started being kept more than a century ago. It was originally predicted to be the third warmest, but after an exceptionally balmy December, it won the dubious distinction of first place.

The news, though disturbing, is hardly surprising. Even more troubling is the probability that 2006 won't hold this title for long, because average temperatures won't stop rising at any point in the near future. Some meteorologists and scientists have chosen to mask the problem as mere "weather patterns" or "climate trends." But a doctorate degree is no longer necessary for one to accurately conclude that human-driven global warming is the chief culprit behind the abnormal weather.

Complicating this dilemma are public officials across the country who espouse a nonchalant or even reckless attitude toward it. When the governor of Texas proposes building 11 new coal-burning, ozone-depleting power plants across his state, and when Congress voices almost no opposition to the Bush administration's opening of previously protected lands and waters for development and exploitation, it's clear that not enough is being done, and it's not being done fast enough. We will reach a point of no return at which no level of action will be sufficient to preclude devastating natural disasters fueled by climate change. We've already seen such disasters, albeit on a much smaller scale than what is likely to come.

The American public isn't much better. Most of us voice concern about the problem and a willingness to help mitigate it, but only to the extent that we don't have to sacrifice any personal comfort or convenience in so doing. We'll talk about conserving energy by lowering the thermostats in our homes, but only to the point at which we don't have to wear an extra layer of clothing or an extra blanket to feel comfortable. We'll discuss recycling to reduce waste, but only if recycling facilities are readily accessible, and only if we don't have to invest any extra time or effort to do it. I include myself in this criticism, of course. For months, I would gladly drive my old tank of a car to work instead of getting out of bed an hour earlier to catch the bus in the morning. More often than not, I was just too tired and lazy to be responsible.

The point to be made here is twofold: 1) everyone can and should do more on a personal level, even those who already consider themselves environmentally conscious; and 2) we all need to get our heads out of the sand and pretend that this crisis doesn't exist, or that it isn't severe, or that we won't all eventually be hurt by it. Whether you live in New York City, where rising sea levels may one day put your apartment underwater, or whether you live in the agricultural Midwest, where catastrophic drought may result in economic ruin, there is no place on the planet where the consequences of global warming can be escaped. Every person is implicated in either contributing to or resolving the problem. Which category you'd prefer to be in is exclusively your choice.

Saying what we want

Last week, on one of those independent media channels that comes with our Dish Network package, I watched a documentary called "This State Divided." It detailed a heated controversy that erupted in 2004 at Utah Valley State College in Orem, Utah, over the student government's decision to pay Michael Moore to come speak on its campus just weeks before the presidential election. On one side of the debate was a large contingent of the student body, who argued that any public speaker should be entitled to express his or her views on the campus, regardless of how distained those views may be by some. On the other side were some community members, who asserted that it wasn't acceptable to pay a political activist whose ideas were so far out of line with the people of the town. One particularly outspoken citizen sued the student government to prevent Moore's visit, arguing that his words would "corrupt a very conservative community in the most conservative state in the nation." Intensifying the dispute was the fact that UVSC's student government also funded Fox News commentator Sean Hannity's visit to campus that same month.

Frankly, I dislike both Michael Moore and Sean Hannity. Both men have made millions by polarizing this country and reinforcing the ridiculous notion that we must either be "liberal" or "conservative," conforming to a poorly defined stereotype rather than deciding the issues on their merits and thinking independently. In any case, this debate was a no-brainer for me. Whatever its political leanings, Utah is a part of the United States of America, and as such, all types of speech are supposed to be protected there. There wasn't any basis to stop the visit of either speaker, especially considering that both visits were funded by the student body. Even if that hadn't been true, using the courts to supersede the speech of a controversial figure like Michael Moore is an abuse of our legal system.

I was particularly dismayed that the same Orem resident who cried foul over Moore's visit was silent on Hannity. Essentially, his position was that free speech was okay, as long as the views being expressed were in agreement with his own. This, of course, completely negates the point of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Viewpoints with which we agree aren't the ones that require protection; the ones we hate the most do. A free society that doesn't welcome dissent isn't really free. Imagine protests of the Iraq war or George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program being met with legal sanctions. Too many times, I've heard the argument that during a "time of war," citizens should support and not question the government's agenda. But the worst threat to our freedom comes not from terrorism; it comes from those who would infringe on our right to express unpopular ideas.

That's why, in places like Orem, Utah, people like Michael Moore should always be free to come and speak to the public (he eventually did, by the way.) And in places like Boston or Berkeley, Sean Hannity should do the same. Will their ideas necessarily be accepted? Probably not. But what matters the most is the freedom to express those ideas even in the face of adversity.

Remembering what's important

About a week ago, shortly after I bought my new car (a Hyundai Elantra), my parents went car shopping themselves and picked out a new one for my father -- a Chrysler Pacifica, perfect to replace the Subaru Outback he drove for several years that already had nearly 120,000 miles on it. He seemed quite happy with the purchase and had gotten a great deal on it.

This morning, on his way to work in the new car, he was involved in a head-on collision with another driver who lost control, crossed the center line on the highway, and struck my father's vehicle at a speed of nearly 60 mph. There simply wasn't any time for my father to react; the truck veered into oncoming traffic in an instant and plowed straight into him. The airbags deployed, which almost certainly saved his life. Both vehicles were completely destroyed. His chest was injured from the airbag's impact, his ankle bruised and swollen, and he was bleeding severely from flying shards of glass -- but miraculously, he and the other driver both survived. They were taken by ambulance to the emergency room, and tonight, my father is back home, shaken but okay. Thank God.

I suppose there are a few valuable lessons to keep in mind from such an experience. One, of course, is the fragility and uncertainty of life. It's quite easy to take for granted until one split second brutally reminds us that we shouldn't. Admittedly, I once balked at my mother's recommendation that safety features be a high priority when selecting a new car. I considered myself a relatively good driver and brushed aside the notion that I might ever be involved in a serious crash. But the best driver in the world could not have prevented or predicted what happened to my father today. (My new car does have front and side air bags, as did the Pacifica, fortunately.)

Also worth noting is the fact that there are still many good people willing to assist total strangers in times of crisis. On the phone tonight, my father mentioned an unknown woman who stopped after the accident happened and stayed there until help arrived. He didn't know her identity, but did recall how solicitous and concerned she was. Ironically, it's often situations like these that serve as the clearest indicator of the basic goodness that still prevails in humanity -- despite daily reminders to the contrary in the mass media.

Clearly, I didn't expect this to be the topic of my first post in 2007. Thankfully, though, I can call it a situation whose outcome could have been much worse than it was. The new car is a total loss, but my father is still around to talk about it.